Following the solemn undertaking of six newly elected judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 10 March 2015 and the Presidency’s election on 11 March 2015, the Presidency of the Court has now assigned the judges to the three judicial Divisions. The Presidency also constituted the different Chambers and assigned the respective situations and cases currently before the Court to these Chambers. The Appeals Division is constituted of Judges Silvia Alejandra Fernández De Gurmendi (Argentina),  Sanji Mmasenono Monageng (Botswana), Christine Van Den Wyngaert (Belgium), Howard Morrison (United Kingdom) and Piotr Hofmański (Poland). The Trial Division is constituted of Judges Joyce Aluoch (Kenya), Kuniko Ozaki (Japan), Olga Venecia Del C. Herrera Carbuccia (Dominican Republic), Robert Fremr (Czech Republic), Chile Eboe-Osuji (Nigeria), Geoffrey A. Henderson (Trinidad and Tobago) and Bertram Schmitt (Germany). The Pre-Trial Division is constituted of Judges Cuno Tarfusser (Italy), Marc Perrin De Brichambaut (France), Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Péter Kovács (Hungary) and Chang-ho Chung (Republic of Korea). The situations in Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Mali and the Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia are assigned to Pre-Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Joyce Aluoch, Cuno Tarfusser and Péter Kovács. The situations in Central African Republic I, Central African Republic II, Darfur; Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya and Uganda are assigned to Pre-Trial Chamber II, composed of Judges Cuno Tarfusser, Marc Perrin de Brichambaut and Chang-ho Chung. In addition, the Presidency recomposed Trial Chambers as follows: ·         Trial Chamber I The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Geoffrey A. Henderson Judge Bertram Schmitt ·         Trial Chamber II The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut Judge Peter Kovacs ·         Trial Chamber III The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo Judge Sylvia Steiner, Presiding Judge Judge Joyce Aluoch Judge Kuniko Ozaki ·         Trial Chamber IV The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain Judge Joyce Aluoch Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji Judge Geoffrey A. Henderson​ ·         Trial Chamber V(A) The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, Presiding Judge Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Robert Fremr ·         Trial Chamber V(B) The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta Judge Kuniko Ozaki, Presiding Judge Judge Robert Fremr Judge Geoffrey A. Henderson ·         Trial Chamber VI The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda Judge Kuniko Ozaki Judge Robert Fremr Judge Chang-ho Chung ·         Trial Chamber VII The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Aimé Kilolo Musamba, Jean-Jacques Mangenda Kabongo, Fidèle Babala Wandu and Narcisse Arido Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji Judge Bertram Schmitt Each Division will soon elect a President of the respective Division from amongst its members and each newly composed Pre-Trial and Trial Chamber will elect a Presiding judge. The Appeals Chamber decides on a Presiding Judge for each appeal. According to article 39(1) of the Rome Statute, the assignment of judges to Divisions by the Presidency is based on the nature of the functions be performed by each Division and the qualifications and experience of the elected judges, so that each Division contains an appropriate combination of expertise in criminal law and procedure and in international law. The judges are assigned for three years, and thereafter until the completion of any case. The judges assigned to the Appeals Division serve exclusively in the Appeals Division for their entire term.    

European Commission requires Member States to automatic interchange information about tax rulings.   European Commission today presented a package of fiscal transparency measures to tackle tax evasion by companies and harmful tax competition in the EU. An important part of this package is a proposal which requires Member States to exchange information automatically about their tax rulings. “Everyone should have their fair share of taxes payable, multinationals as well as everyone else. This proposal for automatic exchange of information, the tax authorities will tax gaps or duplication between Member States better able to map. In the coming months we will set up concrete actions to fill these gaps or address duplication. We are determined to solidify our promises with real, credible and fair measures, “said Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis, which is responsible for the euro and the social dialogue. Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, said:. “The tolerance for companies that do not want to pay their fair share of taxes and regimes that help them reach We need to restore the link between the place where companies actually make their profits and where they are taxed. This requires openness and cooperation by the Member States. That is what we want to achieve fiscal transparency measures in this package. ” Currently Member States share very little information with each other about their tax rulings. They may not themselves judge whether a tax ruling may be of interest to another EU country. Consequently, Member States are often not aware of the existence of cross-border tax rulings issued elsewhere in the EU and may affect their own tax base. This lack of transparency on tax rulings is abused by some companies to artificially reduce their contribution to the tax. To rectify this situation, the Commission proposes to eliminate this assessment and interpretation margin. Member States will be required to automatically exchange information on their tax rulings. The Commission proposes a strict timetable for this purpose: every three months, the national tax authorities, all other Member States should send a brief report on all cross-border tax rulings they have issued (push-component). Member States will then be able to request further information about specific rulings (pull-component). Decision-making The two legislative proposals in this package, the European Parliament and the Council for consultation will be submitted for approval. Member States should reach unanimous agreement by the end of 2015 on the proposal on the tax rulings, so that it can enter into force on January 1, 2016. What follows? Today’s package also includes a communication with a number of other initiatives to promote the pursuit of fiscal transparency in the EU. It involves the following initiatives: Assessment of possible new transparency requirements for multinationals Revision of the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Quantification of the extent of tax evasion and avoidance Repeal of the Savings Directive The next milestone is an action plan for the corporation, which will be presented before the summer. In this second action plan will focus on measures to make the corporation in the single market fairer and more efficient; drawing inter alia the common consolidated heffingsgrondslag for (CCCTB) again raised come and look at how new OESO/G20-acties to grondslaguitholling and winstverschuiving (“BEPS”) combat, can be integrated into action at EU level.    

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy.  It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.  This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content. Dr. Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy. Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations. The Iranian Foreign Minister said that “Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program.” He continued “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law. He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution. Dr. Zarif expressed the hope that his comments “may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations. The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments. Minister Zarif concluded by stating that “the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible.”